Hey all, hope all's well. I've been quiet for some time as I don't do much posting on socials anymore. Saw this and I think it's well organised and presented enough to be seen and even promoted on the Twitter account
A national campaign for licensed, age-restricted, safety-led cannabis regulation in the UK. One plan. One movement. A proposal Parliament can actually consider.
Hey all, hope all's well. I've been quiet for some time as I don't do much posting on socials anymore. Saw this and I think it's well organised and presented enough to be seen and even promoted on the Twitter account
A national campaign for licensed, age-restricted, safety-led cannabis regulation in the UK. One plan. One movement. A proposal Parliament can actually consider.
I've been debating these guys for about 8 months now and quite frankly I think they're more harm towards legalisation than not.
I read their entire proposal and spoke at length with the chap who wrote it, It's bullshit. It only focuses on the growers/users perspective and does nothing to address the safeguarding concerns already presented by the government and elsewhere for Medical GYO, letalone recreational.
Safeguarding is the most important thing for legalisation, these guys accept that Cannabis can create a mental issues within a decent amount of the populous. they accept the fact that the UK has the worst mental health crisis in Europe amongst all age groups and demographics. and then their safeguarding for this is....warning labels. It won't wash and quite frankly it's laughable.
They talk about mental health in young people and then stick an 18+ label on it. Forget the cannabis side of it, it's just a weak proposal with no real effort and thought outside of "PLEASE LET US GROW AND SMOKE!"!
And don't even get me started on the Social club model.
It doesn't work in Spain, ask any non cannabis user who lives near a social club. They hate it and there's active campaigns to have the law changed.
It doesn't work anywhere else and the literal reason patients can't have GYO is because of fears of black market selling. Those same concerns exist with social clubs and remain entirely unaddressed.
It's a crock of nonsense unfortunately and the worst legalisation argument I've ever seen, It's just naive and has no political guidance. From what I can recall this was put together by some former students who like a smoke. None of them are from political or activism movements, all are cannabis users.
At very minimum any recreational cannabis policy needs to be 25+. any other proposal which states otherwise is already dead in the water.
It's just my opinion but I think there are better campaigns with better proposals and with people more connected, more understanding and more dedicated to the cause.
Any campaign needs to satisfy the masses, the bulk of the public, those negatively affected need to have their concerns addressed properly. This is just smoking for the boys.
Hey all, hope all's well. I've been quiet for some time as I don't do much posting on socials anymore. Saw this and I think it's well organised and presented enough to be seen and even promoted on the Twitter account
A national campaign for licensed, age-restricted, safety-led cannabis regulation in the UK. One plan. One movement. A proposal Parliament can actually consider.
I've been debating these guys for about 8 months now and quite frankly I think they're more harm towards legalisation than not.
I read their entire proposal and spoke at length with the chap who wrote it, It's bullshit. It only focuses on the growers/users perspective and does nothing to address the safeguarding concerns already presented by the government and elsewhere for Medical GYO, letalone recreational.
Safeguarding is the most important thing for legalisation, these guys accept that Cannabis can create a mental issues within a decent amount of the populous. they accept the fact that the UK has the worst mental health crisis in Europe amongst all age groups and demographics. and then their safeguarding for this is....warning labels. It won't wash and quite frankly it's laughable.
They talk about mental health in young people and then stick an 18+ label on it. Forget the cannabis side of it, it's just a weak proposal with no real effort and thought outside of "PLEASE LET US GROW AND SMOKE!"!
And don't even get me started on the Social club model.
It doesn't work in Spain, ask any non cannabis user who lives near a social club. They hate it and there's active campaigns to have the law changed.
It doesn't work anywhere else and the literal reason patients can't have GYO is because of fears of black market selling. Those same concerns exist with social clubs and remain entirely unaddressed.
It's a crock of nonsense unfortunately and the worst legalisation argument I've ever seen, It's just naive and has no political guidance. From what I can recall this was put together by some former students who like a smoke. None of them are from political or activism movements, all are cannabis users.
At very minimum any recreational cannabis policy needs to be 25+. any other proposal which states otherwise is already dead in the water.
It's just my opinion but I think there are better campaigns with better proposals and with people more connected, more understanding and more dedicated to the cause.
Any campaign needs to satisfy the masses, the bulk of the public, those negatively affected need to have their concerns addressed properly. This is just smoking for the boys.
25+ will create a massive black market for the youth and could drive up other drug usage and maybe become alcoholics by that time.
The BM canna will get hammered by recreational and more than likely the youth will be consuming hhc like they are just now at an alarming rate , we have the chance to create a clean adult market for over 18s and hopefully eradicate the spice like vapes and contaminated flower that we see just now , crazy for the youths mind.
Social media has more of a negative effect for youth than canna imo. The amount of ADHD autism even undiagnosed where canna would resonate with them over alcohol.
Lets make it normal and boring for the youth not to rebel. Limit THC or higher CBD for 18-25 would be better and safer imo. They would go to same dealers that deal alsorts and only id is a £10 note as professor david nutt stated.
Decrim it as the science has stated but recreational legal oversupply drives up usage big style.
That probably wouldn't provide enough different terpene profiles imo and if one plant is stunted or has probs your short of meds for months if you were reliant on it but as a Hybrid solution including Medial access it could help keeping costs down for certain.
12 plants 6 flower and 6 as a buffer and allowed to produce rather than just cultivation so next ones are vegetated and ready for flower not long after chopping. No big deal or different numbers for rec v med growers.
25+ will create a massive black market for the youth and could drive up other drug usage and maybe become alcoholics by that time.
The BM canna will get hammered by recreational and more than likely the youth will be consuming hhc like they are just now at an alarming rate , we have the chance to create a clean adult market for over 18s and hopefully eradicate the spice like vapes and contaminated flower that we see just now , crazy for the youths mind.
Social media has more of a negative effect for youth than canna imo. The amount of ADHD autism even undiagnosed where canna would resonate with them over alcohol.
Lets make it normal and boring for the youth not to rebel. Limit THC or higher CBD for 18-25 would be better and safer imo. They would go to same dealers that deal alsorts and only id is a £10 note as professor david nutt stated.
Decrim it as the science has stated but recreational legal oversupply drives up usage big style.
That's a problem for the proposal to figure out. It won't happen without 25+. It shouldn't happen without 25+ either but regardless of my opinions society will not tolerate anything less.
This is kind of my point with the safeguarding not being thought through well. I agree it'll create a black market, how do you stop that is the question the proposal needs to satisfy in a realistic, fiscal way for it to be taken seriously.
Anything else is just drinking water hoping for wine.
12 plants 6 flower and 6 as a buffer and allowed to produce rather than just cultivation so next ones are vegetated and ready for flower not long after chopping. No big deal or different numbers for rec v med growers.
And, a strategically selected artisan 'Mother 'F'ing' Plant' letting off bare dankness and known for its vigourous genetix mutating in the corner bubbling away under scrutiny!
That's a problem for the proposal to figure out. It won't happen without 25+. It shouldn't happen without 25+ either but regardless of my opinions society will not tolerate anything less.
This is kind of my point with the safeguarding not being thought through well. I agree it'll create a black market, how do you stop that is the question the proposal needs to satisfy in a realistic, fiscal way for it to be taken seriously.
Anything else is just drinking water hoping for wine.
Would we be the only country with that restriction regarding legal cannabis . Hhc is the big issue at the moment by far and a regulated market could get people away from that nasty world. Why would society not tolerate anything less like 21 or 18 . Why do they tolerate 18+ with alcohol and kids under 18 get it by abundance and the same would obviously be the same with legal weed .
It may sound like safeguarding but opening a can of worms with really cheap n nasty weed that would get sold to kids cos they would be the only buyers of it really. I will go with the pros and lived experience on this as regards safeguarding and i really think david nutt knows his stuff alot more than us.
Where has this 25+ proposal come from as never seen any professional in this world state this with science . Its been demonised too long and needs to be accepted for what it is n that if need be compared to alcohol then a much safer option for 18+ .
Nightcubs n coke the latter ruining kids heads from 14 sometimes younger but becauase they have been told that THC causes psychosis then they might use something else. Tooo many variables at play esp nowadays with vapes, tik tok , coke, smack and burden of society the way it is. The internet cause more psychosis than THC and hhc as we see in eire big probs. Internet 25+ imho would save more kids than THC hhc combined by far.
I understand angle and developing brain but i very much disagree , peace n love but J.A.
Would we be the only country with that restriction regarding legal cannabis . Hhc is the big issue at the moment by far and a regulated market could get people away from that nasty world. Why would society not tolerate anything less like 21 or 18 . Why do they tolerate 18+ with alcohol and kids under 18 get it by abundance and the same would obviously be the same with legal weed .
It may sound like safeguarding but opening a can of worms with really cheap n nasty weed that would get sold to kids cos they would be the only buyers of it really. I will go with the pros and lived experience on this as regards safeguarding and i really think david nutt knows his stuff alot more than us.
Where has this 25+ proposal come from as never seen any professional in this world state this with science . Its been demonised too long and needs to be accepted for what it is n that if need be compared to alcohol then a much safer option for 18+ .
Nightcubs n coke the latter ruining kids heads from 14 sometimes younger but becauase they have been told that THC causes psychosis then they might use something else. Tooo many variables at play esp nowadays with vapes, tik tok , coke, smack and burden of society the way it is. The internet cause more psychosis than THC and hhc as we see in eire big probs. Internet 25+ imho would save more kids than THC hhc combined by far.
I understand angle and developing brain but i very much disagree , peace n love but J.A.
imo, anything to do with legalisation has to be scrutinised to the highest level because thats what it will face to get through. You're going to need to appease every concern with every area of our society. If we can't do that then legalisation will never happen here.
You can't compare to existing laws with other products, I get the premise of it and I agree with it but we all know if everything was illegal today then alcohol would never be legal. Unfortunately we aren't starting from a level playing field and those alcohol companies largely own our government. It's an unlevel playing field to begin with and I think that's quite important.
No country in the world has the mental health crisis that the UK has, it's incredibly underplayed. We also have one of the largest ratios of mental health:suicide attempts. Mentally we're an incredibly fragile nation. Adding cannabis to that at best muddies the water. There will be many that benefit, potentially 10-fold those that do not benefit, but those that use cannabis in an unhealthy way, in a depressive nation like ours is a real risk that needs to be completely thought out from top to bottom. - Warning labels will do nothing (as they're suggesting).
Every single NHS dependent (and thus UK Government dependent) advice suggests the brain isn't fully developed until 25 and introducing cannabis into that can be remarkably harmful to development. The clinics operate around a risk adverse framework when it comes to patients age, so there is clearly an expressed and accepted concern.
And now we just open it up without medical monitoring to 18+ despite enough established concern that would stop many 18 year olds being prescribed to begin with or at least high strength cannabis. It doesn't make sense and MPs will tear any 18+ argument to bits. it needs to be sensible, not our sensible, sensible in line with what the government deem as sensible thinking. - imo this is the crux of every legalise cannabis argument. all of them fail to think from the perspective of the man making the decision.
It's like asking your mum for a Mcdonalds as a kid, sure you can say "I want a mcdonalds, I should be allowed it!" but its better to say "You won't have to cook and you can put your feet up all evening!". - I might be doing a terrible job of explaining my pov.
Safeguards are being or are in place for all of the things you mentioned. Coke and smack is illegal, smoking is now illegal, vapes will be gone once the charger loophole is closed, social media is facing child bans so tik tok is gone for kids. Everything is moving to a risk averse society and any proposal for anything that is currently illegal will need to address this far more than any argument has previously.
These aren't what I want to see happen, its just how the government will view any proposal for legalising cannabis and if you can't satisfy them then there's no chance. You have to play ball sometimes and take baby steps.
I think we're a good decade from legalisation, if at all anyway.
New post automatically merged:
That said, I respect all of y'all views on it. We all want a safe, legal recreational avenue.
I just wish more of these proposals would hire an ex MP to governmentify it.
Legal Growers UK: a fresh campaign group and platform shaking up the debate. Interesting debate, guys—very intriguing and still quite controversial. A nanny state!
public health england (uk health security agency) will never allow it due to smokers. they will NEVER allow or recommend smoking anything whatsoever and as we all know tobacco wouldnt get through as a "new" product in 2026. Thats what will hold it all back and people not willing to give up smoking the plant. The mental gymnastics used to ignore the advice would no doubt lead to claims of "the govt said its ok and taxes it why do i have COPD" in 10-15 years time
i feel its that basic. Until people get on board with consuming as dictated we are fucked
imo, anything to do with legalisation has to be scrutinised to the highest level because thats what it will face to get through. You're going to need to appease every concern with every area of our society. If we can't do that then legalisation will never happen here.
You can't compare to existing laws with other products, I get the premise of it and I agree with it but we all know if everything was illegal today then alcohol would never be legal. Unfortunately we aren't starting from a level playing field and those alcohol companies largely own our government. It's an unlevel playing field to begin with and I think that's quite important.
No country in the world has the mental health crisis that the UK has, it's incredibly underplayed. We also have one of the largest ratios of mental health:suicide attempts. Mentally we're an incredibly fragile nation. Adding cannabis to that at best muddies the water. There will be many that benefit, potentially 10-fold those that do not benefit, but those that use cannabis in an unhealthy way, in a depressive nation like ours is a real risk that needs to be completely thought out from top to bottom. - Warning labels will do nothing (as they're suggesting).
Every single NHS dependent (and thus UK Government dependent) advice suggests the brain isn't fully developed until 25 and introducing cannabis into that can be remarkably harmful to development. The clinics operate around a risk adverse framework when it comes to patients age, so there is clearly an expressed and accepted concern.
And now we just open it up without medical monitoring to 18+ despite enough established concern that would stop many 18 year olds being prescribed to begin with or at least high strength cannabis. It doesn't make sense and MPs will tear any 18+ argument to bits. it needs to be sensible, not our sensible, sensible in line with what the government deem as sensible thinking. - imo this is the crux of every legalise cannabis argument. all of them fail to think from the perspective of the man making the decision.
It's like asking your mum for a Mcdonalds as a kid, sure you can say "I want a mcdonalds, I should be allowed it!" but its better to say "You won't have to cook and you can put your feet up all evening!". - I might be doing a terrible job of explaining my pov.
Safeguards are being or are in place for all of the things you mentioned. Coke and smack is illegal, smoking is now illegal, vapes will be gone once the charger loophole is closed, social media is facing child bans so tik tok is gone for kids. Everything is moving to a risk averse society and any proposal for anything that is currently illegal will need to address this far more than any argument has previously.
These aren't what I want to see happen, its just how the government will view any proposal for legalising cannabis and if you can't satisfy them then there's no chance. You have to play ball sometimes and take baby steps.
I think we're a good decade from legalisation, if at all anyway.
New post automatically merged:
That said, I respect all of y'all views on it. We all want a safe, legal recreational avenue.
I just wish more of these proposals would hire an ex MP to governmentify it.
Nueroplasticity goes into 30s so would you propose 30+ , that is crazy. Making cannabis illegal has caused more harm than good. Too many correlating factors at play for causation far too many. Kids will do illegal stuff at that rebelous age and moving goalposts agewise wont make any difference
Thats why with the data saying oversupply in rec market caused hosp admissions to rise and decrim it didnt so in that regard i support decrim over recreational.
Following whats happening in usa and esp humboldt for years and we know who invested and why , phylos was the start of it really , yes big tobacco and drinks are already invested n kinda took over , i think too much money to be stopped and 18 or 25 too much money invested for it not to be 18.
The illegality of coke smack sitting next to canna is the big problem . Very young lads getting sucked into coke game cos they hustled weed , too much money in it for coke dealers not to capitalise on an already made market, largest hustling demographic i would say 18-25 lol .
They already getting round the social media ban as seen in aus so what will pop up in its place shudder to think to be honest.
Big business will have more of a say than goverments as wee have seen and see. Hhc is destroying kids but THC is getting the blame , direct cause in some cases but for most its a correlating factor than cause. Usa will open for export n watch what happens to med and a rec market that will be created.
Alot of them 18+would go medical to be honest but they might love hhc too much.
Nueroplasticity goes into 30s so would you propose 30+ , that is crazy. Making cannabis illegal has caused more harm than good. Too many correlating factors at play for causation far too many. Kids will do illegal stuff at that rebelous age and moving goalposts agewise wont make any difference
Thats why with the data saying oversupply in rec market caused hosp admissions to rise and decrim it didnt so in that regard i support decrim over recreational.
Following whats happening in usa and esp humboldt for years and we know who invested and why , phylos was the start of it really , yes big tobacco and drinks are already invested n kinda took over , i think too much money to be stopped and 18 or 25 too much money invested for it not to be 18.
The illegality of coke smack sitting next to canna is the big problem . Very young lads getting sucked into coke game cos they hustled weed , too much money in it for coke dealers not to capitalise on an already made market, largest hustling demographic i would say 18-25 lol .
They already getting round the social media ban as seen in aus so what will pop up in its place shudder to think to be honest.
Big business will have more of a say than goverments as wee have seen and see. Hhc is destroying kids but THC is getting the blame , direct cause in some cases but for most its a correlating factor than cause. Usa will open for export n watch what happens to med and a rec market that will be created.
I personally don't disagree with that. My world view is self governance across the board with government being involved in almost nothing outside of proper crimes. Let people do whatever the hell they want is how I largely feel about pretty much everything that doesn't involve bothering another person in a negative way.
Our government should look and learn at all nations that have embraced cannabis and learn from every single one of them, we should embrace data from outside the NHS especially when we're behind the curve.
That said, our government do none of those things so using them to argue with won't work, they'll just point to our NHS data as what we're going to go by.
You are coming from a very logical and reasonable position, the problem imo is that the british establishment is neither logical nor reasonable.
I personally don't disagree with that. My world view is self governance across the board with government being involved in almost nothing outside of proper crimes. Let people do whatever the hell they want is how I largely feel about pretty much everything that doesn't involve bothering another person in a negative way.
Our government should look and learn at all nations that have embraced cannabis and learn from every single one of them, we should embrace data from outside the NHS especially when we're behind the curve.
That said, our government do none of those things so using them to argue with won't work, they'll just point to our NHS data as what we're going to go by.
You are coming from a very logical and reasonable position, the problem imo is that the british establishment is neither logical nor reasonable.
For me being born with having genetic epilepsy , cannabis was the key that made me feel complete n not by seizure free and for alot of neurodivergents if i can generalise would have maybe felt more complete than me n that was me under 18.
It has had a positive impact in my life from very early. Kept me away from the drugs n drink that i see ravaging people i know. You find early on if its for ye or not.
I dont think restriction is the answer its sorting out and preventing an endo cannabinoid deficiency. Narrow neural pathways is the problem that would need sorted , As i have said a few times on here before i personally upregulate cb 1 receptors with CBD through faah enzyme inhibitor to really raise anandamide n thats the power of CBD raising that endocannabinoid n g coupled protein receptors restored.
Anandamide present means things like you can eat without THC reliance n alot of other things, Terpinolene high THC in a depleted anandamide body would be cause for concern as we all know our experiences with how we feel is a full profile n not single molecule like THC.
All about creating profiles that suit individual but that will take time and testing for clinical endocannabinoid deficiency now thats safeguarding 18+
I know 25+ you were speaking about appeasement etc n understand your point as regards goverment.
Gd read on it being a nootropic with ratio n terp profile here
legalgrowers.org
www.instagram.com
